Slashdot Mirror
Will Cable Unplug the File Swappers?
netringer writes "The cable companies are planning to give the RIAA's case a hand and limit P2P file swapping. Yahoo has the Business Week story that cable companies are considering going away from the flat rate pricing model for cable Internet access. They plan to set a lower bandwidth cap for the flat rate and the raise the rates for bandwidth hogs who exceed the cap."
...they are doing this becuase they are losing their asses providing broadband at current prices.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Now provide broadband at the same flatrate type scheme. Now, your guy who stays online for hours but just chats on IRC and reads mail costs you way less than some dude who d/ls ISOs and streams 300kbps from real.com once a week.
They all got it wrong. Now they have to backtrack. Lowcost flatrate, unlimited broadband will become a thing of the past. I'd put my house on it.
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
If I gotta pay extra to get the latest distros either way I go, maybe I should buy them direct. At least then I would be supporting the distributors and not the cable company.
The whole concept behind broadband was that we, the user, would have high bandwidth to do with as we like. But now this idea is completely lost.
Since the broadband provider in a given area is usually an effective monopoly they have figured out that they can jack prices on those who want and need broadband.
It's only incidental that this helps the RIAA. It's really about huge corporations lobbying the government in order to preserve their monopoly and then turning around and putting the screws to the end user.
The dream of cheap broadband for the masses has died on the altar of the holy corporation.
The fact of the matter is people used Napster and are using these filesharing applications mainly because they get it for free.
Reducing a product to an insanely cheap price won't work, because you just can't beat free.
Hell, back in the old days Amiga games were 15 pounds and people still pirated them - and before that Spectrum games were 3 pounds and you still found people with 90 minute tapes with 3 odd games shoved on there.
I don't have magic solutions to keep everyone (including the RIAA happy) but I'm sure other people do. But I think that we should really admit what we've known all along that these filesharing allow you to get something for free. Yes, there are legitimate uses for it, but the fraction of those people who do use it like that are in the minority.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Cable companies dropping their customers by raising prices isn't going to hurt P2P that much. The xxAAs are up against a much bigger enemy: college students. Most large universities have dorm-room ethernet connections which are far superior to cable modem access (I've had both, so I know the difference). A big problem with cable is that the upload speed sucks. Universities don't have that problem. And dorm-room ethernet isn't going away or going up in price just because the RIAA says it should. So maybe the cable companies can cause a few people inconvenience, but they can't win the RIAA's war.
The media companies that have beeen waiting for broadband to become popular so they can sell streaming entertainment might have a problem. How will people feel about paying to watch a movie online plus have to pay thier cable provider extra for each movie they watch?
http://Lenny.com
That story is the textbook definition of a hatchet job.
Cable ISPs could care less what you download. Bandwidth hogs are actually a net loss for ISPs, so they intend to charge those more. It is a mere accident that those hogs happen to be MP3 users.
For all the ISP cares, they could be SETI hogs, or pr0n hogs or remote X server/client hogs. So please drop the reference to the RIAA.
Yes; I'd wager that many of the people who have broadband have it precisely because they *use* the bandwidth; if you're only transferring email, web pages, etc., then you might just as well use a dialup connection. The ability to transfer large files quickly and cheaply is the raison d'etre for cable/dsl/etc. -- if it becomes too expensive for the average user to transfer mp3s and pirated software, they're just not going to pay it. It's difficult to gauge what the critical point might be, but I would be doubtful as to my willingness to spend anything more than, say, $100/month -- and I imagine that's more than most.
I believe that the "pay for content" idea is inherently flawed, and that it won't succeed whether applied to bandwidth or to web site access. I'd wager that, from an economic standpoint, introducing such fees would lead to *decreased* revenue for the providers. Only if the cost of broadband for the non-bw-hog were reduced to levels equal to or below those of regular dialup connections might such a change become at all viable..
Having said all of that, I imagine that what we might wind up seeing is a model akin to that of cellular phones, where various pricing levels are available according to projected bandwidth use, with excess being charged at a set rate - but the cable companies will need to be *very* careful in determining the ideal prices and, at any rate, you can bet that the need to compete with DSL etc. will keep any price hikes in check.
Bandwidth isn't free. It isn't expensive, really, but it sure isn't free. So flat rate, while desireable, probably isn't reasonable.
Problem: Monopolies.
You can never trust a monopoly to set a fair price.
Problem: Spam
The cost should be born by the party that initiates the transaction, not the party that receives it. But this can be quite difficult to determine for non-persistent protocols. Mail is easy, bill it back to the sender, and if you can't, you don't forward it. http, ftp, etc. are much more difficult. The user who initiates the transaction is the one who receives most of the data. The sender is essentially reactive. So the sender shouldn't be paying here. Without micropayments, I don't see any reasonable method to handle this.
Problem: privacy
If transactions are billed back to the sender of the communication, then it will be possible to trace who sent what message. This has obvious unpleasant implications for privacy of communication.
But bandwidth isn't free, and I object to paying to receive spam. Perhaps everyone needs two addresses. One where the sender pays for the transmission, and one where the receiver pay. You would use the receiver account for ftp, http, mailing lists, nttp, etc. (oops! that opens you up to spam!) and the sender for normal e-mail.
This needs careful design. Remember the inherent dangers of any single point of failure. (Look at what mailing lists could to the spam prevention of the separated addresses!)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I'm tired of the self-righteous indignation of cable modem companies and even some of their subscribers regarding bandwidth usage. The cable companies made offers to everyone for "unlimited usage" and "T1 speeds" and "always on" connectivity.
Now that some small percentage of users are actually using the bandwidth that they were sold, the cable companies are demonizing them. They want to charge them extra, calling them "bandwidth hogs" and other such childish names. I don't see the cable companies scrambling to offer lower prices to people who just check e-mail occasionally and maybe move 750K a week through web surfing. I don't see them being called "bandwidth anorexics."
I'd have a lot more sympathy for the cable companies if they had been honest from the beginning, figured out what kind of bandwidth they could support, and spelled that out in the agreements.
They remind me of the airlines. Now the airlines have squeezed the seats so close together that they don't have adequate room for carry-ons, they portray passengers with "oversized" carry-on bags as self-centered buffoons -- despite the fact that many of these "oversized" bags met the airline's size requirements at the time that they were purchased.
I find that a good portion of the websites I visit can't send me data faster than 1Mbps anyway, so the 2Mbps down I get is only used when more than one person is browsing in my house. It's nice when I find a good server that has an ISO or file I want with a fast connection - I can download Mozilla 1.0 (10MB) in two or three minutes, but the majority of people don't need or use it.
If they raise my price, then I'll shop around and likely find that it's still the best deal. However DSL and regular dial up will get a shot in the arm, at least for a little while. I may even be motivated to get a T1 (or more) to share with my condo neighbors.
Either way, they're still raking in a cash. AT&T says 1% of their users use 16% of their bandwidth - well that means that 50% of their users are paying $50/mo for the equivilant of dial up bandwidth. Cash in the bank.
What they're selling now is bandwidth, not transfer. If they cap my transfer to 5GB per month I'll expect them to leave the bandwidth where it is or higher - it'll only make them more money since I have more oportunity to go over - and those who transfer very little will feel that they are paying less for faster service. Happiness all around.
At any rate, there'll be options.
-Adam
Any lawyers interested in a nice big class action suit?
This reminds me of when a bunch of idiots sued Blockbuster video because they were too lazy to return their tapes on time. Each member of this class got about $18-$22 credited to their Blockbuster accounts, which essentially cost Blockbuster nothing.
Of course, if people do sue, the cable companies will then raise their rates to cover legal fees, court costs, settlement payouts, etc. In essence, the consumers would be suing "themselves." The only way to protest any kind of metering (if it happens, I highly doubt it will) is to simply cancel the service. Companies don't listen to anything but the almighty buck. You can whine and complain all you want but they won't care until you stop the gravy train.
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
If MY connection gets capped, I will complain every time I get an unwanted email. If I spend 20kiB of my download limit downloading an unwanted email, I better get that 20kiB back, or the sender better PAY me for the bandwidth they used by sending me a message. If each email I get costs me money, it should be illegal for people to send me unsolicited emails. (Hey, unsolicited faxes are illegal IIRC)
/usr/games/fortune
Don't get me wrong I do not agree with the cable/telcos but unlimited bandwidth was a carrot that helped them sell the service. In most cases you probably sold more for them than all their marketing. Now they do NOT need your marketing any more they have the idiots who do not need hog speed Internet and who use less that 1G per month. Since you probably transfered (and took your friends with you)from a mom and pop ISP who did not have the $$$ to compete in the high speed game you no longer have them to turn to because they have gone belly up.
"You just cant fit 10 pounds of SH1T in a 5 pound bag." Now that the mom and pops have gone out of business cabel/telcos can no longer afford to give it away and are starting to charge a $$$$$ rate.
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
Jesus people, cut the knee-jerking and think for a second. Having additional charges for those who exceed a certain bandwidth point CAN be a very good thing for most of us. Setting it in the context of "shutting down file swappers" though is a red herring. It comes down to paying for what you use, nothing more or less.
Look at the data. In the linked article, it cites AT&T's data that 1% of users use 16% of the service's bandwidth. Elsewhere, I've seen numbers like 5% of users consuming 30% of available bandwidth. Part of my monthly DSL/cable bill, and yours, goes to supporting these bandwidth hogs. If implemented correctly and regulated as a public utility like the phone / gas / electricity, having the mega-users pay for excess bandwidth can make it less expensive for casual users to access the internet with a fat pipe. At least in CA, electricity consumers like wasteful home owners or power-intensive companies that use more electricity than others pay more for it because, like broadband, it's a limited resource that they're using more of than others. Why should broadband be exempt from similar controls, if implemented and regulated reasonably?
What sort of guidelines should be in place? Primarily, there should be a mandated minimum amount of bandwidth one gets for the flat rate so that broadband ISPs can't turn it into something analogous to basic cable service -- I would expect regulation such that the per-capita amount of bandwidth used by around 95% of a service's users would set the minimum flat rate. Also, I'd advocate against speed limitations wherever possible - the purpose of broadband is the fat pipe, so why have it if you can't use it?
I believe such a pricing scheme can be implemented fairly and work as a benefit to both us and the continued implementation of broadband service. There just needs to be adequate rules to prevent the broadband carriers from using it to screw us over. But the people who see everything AT&T or SBC says as part of a sinister plot to double everyone's rates and halve their download speed are just a part of the bloviating tinfoil hat crowd, not really deserving to be listened to.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
Actually, the cable companies are shooting themselves in the foot if they are trying to stop P2P. I know a lot of people that have broadband for that reason alone. Regardless of whether or not it is wrong or legal, it is pretty much the only "Killer App" for broadband right now.
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
Their not necessarily metering just charging you more for more bandwidth.
That's not a bad thing. Metering not only ensures cable companies keep their costs down (figuring the worst downloaders will either buy the cheapest service and download at slow speeds, or they will buy the most expensive service and pay their cost), it also ensures indirectly that people with smaller budgets can get access to broadband, since presumably these people would buy the cheapest service.
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
Universities have to pay for that internet too, and you bet they're starting to cap student use. They just don't get as much press over it and do so in a slower, more beauracratic manner.
I am one of those people that shares gigabytes per day, primarily through the anime fansub scene. For those of you who may not follow it, two years ago, a 25 minute anime episode was about 50mb in size, and was in 320x240 realplayer format. Then broadband and DivX came along, and suddenly everything is DVD quality and over 200mb in size at 640x480. The catch was, despite more broadband actually getting it has become much harder. Downloading takes forever. Connections are quickly saturated. ISPs are capping like crazy. All the fansubbers and primary distributors are so obsessed with high quality that they failed to appreciate the tradeoffs.
The point it, the internet is neither unlimited nor free. There are costs, but we weren't directly paying for them, so we pretend they don't exist. The P2P networks were a manifestation like this. They don't even make a distinction between the guy next door and someone halfway across the world.
We're all going to have to get used to working with a lot less bandwidth, and paying for our fair share. Unlimited flat-rate broadband was untenable. It should have been this way from the beginning.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
I would like to agree with you, but when companies start losing business I don't think it is clear to them what it is that causes their customers to leave. I see postage-paid comment cards everywhere, but I can't say I have ever filled one out. Have you?
So they break up their customer base into target audiences and go with the stereotypical whims of the largest percentage. And who is that? Probably not someone who knows or cares what an FTP server is. Granted, these same people can and probably do use peer-to-peer file sharing services (sometimes without knowing it), but when that stops working they will just chalk it up to that bad computer voodoo.
I would say that the best thing you could do (realistically) is call and complain. The squeeky wheel really does get the grease. If you don't get the answers you want or the satisfaction you feel you deserve, ask to speak to a manager. Get the issue escalated until you get what you want or you decide to cancel your service. At least when you cancel they will know why, and several people within the company will have been involved.
As with politics, voting alone is not enough. You have to voice your opinions and be persistent. To most people, it's just not worth their time to do so, and so the minority suffers, if you can truly call it suffering.
And when they cap down this sinister 1% that's using 16% of their bandwidth, charging exorbitant rates, how long will it be before they decide to clamp down on the next 5% that's using 30% of their bandwidth? And the next 10%? And the next x%?
Lovely divide and conquer trying to get us to buy the concept, but it's purely political. They know what they want to do (start building in unilateral price hikes to "meet a need") and they just had to find a laughable reason to do it.
Cable modems/DSL aren't gas or electricity, but thanks for the inept analogy anyway.
If the per-capita bandwidth was set at what the mean that 95% of the service's users use and speed caps were removed, I'd be the first to jump on that puppy. But since we're talking greedy monopolies here I've no such rosy vision of sensibility here.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.